Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New

III. Prevention and Intervention Programs
for Juvenile Delinquency
Dealing effectively with juvenile delinquency involves
two distinct but overlapping endeavors—prevention
and intervention—each of which has somewhat
different purposes and requires the efforts of somewhat
different agencies and actors. For present purposes,
we define prevention as community-based activities
aimed at helping youth avoid delinquent behavior and
consequently coming into contact with the juvenile justice
system. Prevention programs are mainly developed and
implemented by schools, social service agencies, mental
and public health agencies, and the like. Juvenile justice
agencies, of course, are also often involved, along with
law enforcement, but the focus of prevention efforts is
on youth who may be at risk for delinquent behavior but
have not yet been referred to juvenile justice agents for
response to an alleged delinquent offense.
Much is known about effective prevention
programs from research and practice and the
question of how to optimize such programs for
cost-effective impact on juvenile behavior is
worthy of careful consideration.
Prevention is an essential part of an effective strategy
for addressing juvenile delinquency in any community.
Indeed, if it were completely successful, there would be
no need for a juvenile justice system and, even when
only partially successful, it produces better outcomes
for the affected youth, the community, and the juvenile
justice system. Much is known about effective prevention
programs from research and practice and the question of
how to optimize such programs for cost-effective impact
on juvenile behavior is worthy of careful consideration.
That topic goes beyond the scope of this paper, however.
Here we focus on the interaction of the juvenile justice
system with alleged juvenile offenders who are presented
to agents of that system for a response, typically by law
enforcement or school personnel.
Some such cases are not accepted into the juvenile justice
system, e.g., if the alleged offense is very minor or if there
is little evidence that it actually occurred. Beyond that
point, we will refer to the response of the juvenile justice
system to such cases as intervention. For instance, cases
may be formally accepted but immediately diverted out
of the juvenile justice system with or without conditions.
For our purposes then, diversion is an intervention.
Juvenile justice interventions involve two components—a
supervisory component and a treatment component—
though either may be minimal or nonexistent for some
interventions. The supervisory component consists of
some structure for monitoring or controlling the youth’s
behavior, e.g., probation supervision, day reporting,
electronic monitoring, nonsecure residential facilities, and
secure custodial institutions. The treatment component
consists of activities or services provided within the
supervisory structure that are intended to facilitate positive
behavioral changes that will endure after supervision
has ended, e.g., counseling, victim-offender mediation,
cognitive-behavioral therapy, academic instruction,
vocational training, and the like.
The supervisory component constrains the juvenile’s
freedom to act and access to social and personal
amenities to some degree or another, with incarceration
representing the most extreme form. On the one hand, this
impedes additional delinquent behavior and thus provides
a means of protecting the public from a juvenile viewed as
an immediate threat to persons, property, or self. On the
other hand, such loss of freedom and access is aversive
and thus constitutes punishment for the instigating
offense. When the level of control goes beyond what is
proportionate to the offender’s risk to public safety, the
supervisory component is being used punitively.
Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice
11